Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • jm1973
    • By jm1973 12th Sep 17, 11:34 AM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Pre-1998 Student Loan / Statute barred advice needed
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:34 AM
    Pre-1998 Student Loan / Statute barred advice needed 12th Sep 17 at 11:34 AM

    A couple of years ago I started repairing my credit record. It is now good and 2 years ago my partner and I took out a mortgage.

    A few months back I started getting phone calls and texts from various companies alluding to student loans that I owed money for. I ignored them until I eventually got a letter.

    I rang the number and it was from a debt collection company saying I owed around £2000 for a pre-1998 student loan which I never paid back.

    I said that this was the first I had heard of it and could they supply some kind of evidence to back their claim. They then admitted that I hadn't made a payment, or had any contact with them, since 2003.

    At this point I suggested the debt was statute barred. I didn't hear anything from them for a few weeks, then eventually I got a letter saying that the debt is indeed statute barred, and they would no longer be pursuing the debt.

    A few weeks later I started to get phone calls, and eventually a letter from another company, called Allied. They said I owed around £800 from a 1992 student loan, or to be more precise interest payments from a student loan from 1992.

    Again I suggested this would be statute barred, but they said that a CCJ was given to me in around 2000 so the debt was still enforceable. I asked them to send me proof of the original debt, and proof of the CCJ.

    Several weeks later I got a letter with photocopied statements of the original student loan, dated from the early 1990s, but with an address written on them that I lived in from 2011 - 2012. There was also a photocopy of another statement - this one dated May this year, which was again addressed to the address I lived in only from 2011 - 2012.

    There was nothing to do with any CCJ in the letter.

    I spoke to the debt company again and they said it was their understanding that the loan was taken out, and the CCJ awarded, against the address that was photocopied onto the letters. This is obviously nonsense because the loan was taken out in 1992, the CCJ allegedly in 2000 and I didn't move into the address till 2011ish.

    They said they would go back to the client to get more info. This was several weeks ago and I haven't heard anything back from them (but they do tend to go quiet for weeks at a time).

    However, I got a missed call yesterday and when I looked up the number it was from Erudio, supposedly about a student loan. Whether it is the same one or another one I do not know.

    Can anyone please give me some advise:

    1. I have not paid anything off these loans and I have not been in touch with them, or them with me as far as I know.
    2. I used to do contract work, and it is possible that the umbrella company has deferred or made payments to these loans (although they say they didn't), and it seems unlikely given one of the loans has already turned out to be statute barred.
    3. If one debt is statute barred, then I imagine the older one would be too.

    Nothing has been put on my CRA thus far. Am I right in thinking that if the debt is that old they are no longer able to put this on my credit record?

    My main concern is not losing my good credit rating, but also I do not have a lot of money to pay off debts that I believe to be statute barred.

    Should I send prove it letters?
    Should I send statute barred letters?
    Should I ignore them?

    Any advise gratefully received.
Page 1
  • National Debtline
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:27 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:27 PM
    Hi JM1973 and welcome to MSE,

    The 6 year clock under limitations for the old style loans starts from when the first deferment was due but missed, the last payment or the last written acknowledgement, whichever is the later.

    It would also be the debt collectors responsibility to provide proof of the CCJ, if they claim there is one. I will make you aware that if there is a CCJ, and they can prove that to be the case, then the debt would still be enforceable, but with the caveat that they would need special permission from the court to use enforcement action as the CCJ is more than 6 years old.

    There should be nothing more they can add to your credit file at this stage. The debt will appear for 6 years from the date of default or judgement, which should've been and gone by now, based on the dates you have given.

    I would suggest you send the limitations letter again, but slightly amend it to say, clearly, that you want proof of the CCJ as that is their responsibility under the limitations act. If they are still unable to provide this then raise a complaint on the grounds of harassment and escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Good luck,

    We work as money advisers for National Debtline and have specific permission from MSE to post to try to help those in debt. Read more information on National Debtline in MSE's Debt Problems: What to do and where to get help guide. If you find you're struggling with debt and need further help try our online advice tool My Money Steps
    • fatbelly
    • By fatbelly 12th Sep 17, 1:29 PM
    • 11,528 Posts
    • 8,663 Thanks
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:29 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:29 PM
    The debts sound statute barred unless there is a ccj on them. On the first debt you've asked for proof of the ccj and said (I think) that you won't be making payments as you consider the debt statute barred.

    You could do the same on the second one.

    Student loans don't appear on CRA files but a ccj would (for 6 years)

    Before someone says 'a student loan cannot be SB', here is what National debtline say:

    There are ‘old style’ and ‘new style’ student loans. Old-style student loans are for students who started their university course before September 1998. New-style student loans apply to students starting their course from September 1998 onwards.

    The Limitation Act says that the limitation period for student loans is six years.

    The cause of action (when the limitation period starts running) for old-style student loans, is usually when the loan became due for repayment in the April following the conclusion of your course. However, if you asked for it to be deferred within the six year limitation period, this would have restarted the limitation period.

    For new-style student loans, the cause of action is likely to be when your earnings reach the set level at which deductions from your wages can begin. Because the Student Loan Company can take money directly from your wages, it might be more difficult to use the Limitation Act. Contact us for advice
    (cross-posted with laura)
    • jm1973
    • By jm1973 12th Sep 17, 3:00 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 3:00 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 3:00 PM
    Thanks you both for the speedy replies.

    It would also be the debt collectors responsibility to provide proof of the CCJ, if they claim there is one. I will make you aware that if there is a CCJ, and they can prove that to be the case, then the debt would still be enforceable, but with the caveat that they would need special permission from the court to use enforcement action as the CCJ is more than 6 years old.
    If this is the case, would they be able to add anything to my CRA?

    Presumably it would have already been added at the time, and dropped off after 6 years.
    Last edited by jm1973; 12-09-2017 at 3:03 PM. Reason: change
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,811Posts Today

8,821Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Sadly for those buying jointly "Where there are joint purchasers, all purchasers would need to be first-time buyers. "

  • First time buyers usually defined as someone who has never owned or part owned a property

  • You will not pay stamp duty

  • Follow Martin